Change to overnight parking rules in Highlands (1 Viewer)

[MR. FUSION]

I figure these place SHOULD be covered under our road tax.

Who paid for the land to build these service stations in the first place? I would have thought it was us - the tax payer - and the road tax payer in particular.

It seems we - the public - stump up the cash to buy and build these things, then the Govt sell the facility off on the cheap to their cronies (who pay profits into off-shore tax havens) who then make huge profits leasing the space to people like Starbucks who don't pay any tax.

Hmmmm. I think I'm turning into a radical lefty

I don't think you are...this is just a fraction of the abuse that was/is going on with unchecked road and motorway building. I understand Dr Beeching et al cut British Rail to the bone and destroyed a very efficient rail/road freight & transport system. Including the Post Offices green and very efficient train to electric vehicle postal system in many cities/towns and rural areas that operated in the 50/60's.


Funny that at the sane time peoples options of using the state railways was being taken away & everything became about car ownership & road haulage,various government ministers & lords and party funders and their companies were becoming multi millionaires from government sponsored road building schemes ploughing through our green and pleasant & the subsequent explosion of road haulage. Apart from the staggering amount of Co2 released by roadbuilding many of these projects Included digging up a lot of peat bogs releasing millions more of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere BTW.

Just imagine if the rail network had been kept we could have had a proper integrated (green) freight on the rails system and reduced the massive burden, costs and pollution and construction projects and repairs from having a road based heavy goods vehicle network.:thumb:

 

[jonandshell]

Reading this thread reminded me why I head across the channel at every opportunity!
GB Plc doesn't like motorhomers!:Angry:

Get over it and spend your cash somewhere we are welcomed!:thumb:

 

[GJH]

Reading this thread reminded me why I head across the channel at every opportunity!
[HI]GB Plc doesn't like motorhomers![/HI]:Angry:

Get over it and spend your cash somewhere we are welcomed!:thumb:

There are thousands of places where motorhomes can stop legally, both off site (as some of our full-timers have shown) and on places like CLs/CSs (in practical terms more or less a UK equivalent of aires).

The fact is that those motorhomers who want aires in the UK and are actually prepared to do anything constructive about it probably number in the dozens rather than even the few hundreds who have signed previous petitions.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[nodge]

Ah, as a legal professional I thought you would probably be aware - Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Full AA article HERE.

Legal professional, but not nothing to do with parking disputes.

 

[GJH]

Legal professional, but not nothing to do with parking disputes.

My mistake. From the tone of your first post I thought the content was based on knowledge of parking law.

 

[johnp10]

Legal professional, but not nothing to do with parking disputes.

So you don't really know if my view is "skewed" or not?
Contract, not Parking Law is surely the issue regarding an unpaid charge for a service or facility?
I'd have thought any legal bod would be up to speed with something that basic.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[nodge]

My mistake. From the tone of your first post I thought the content was based on knowledge of parking law.

Don't worry, easy mistake.

Your cheerleader liked it

 

[GJH]

Don't worry, easy mistake.

Your cheerleader liked it

I'm not worried in the slightest - and, so far as I know, I don't have a "cheerleader"

 

[nodge]

So you don't really know if my view is "skewed" or not?
Contract, not Parking Law is surely the issue regarding an unpaid charge for a service or facility?
I'd have thought any legal bod would be up to speed with something that basic.

The original point you made that I disputed was that parking operators are using the courts and generally getting successful outcomes. This is incorrect, granted your friend did point a law change I was unaware of so kudos to him.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[johnp10]

The original point you made that I disputed was that parking operators are using the courts and generally getting successful outcomes. This is incorrect, granted your friend did point a law change I was unaware of so kudos to him.

We are talking here of occupiers of private land applying charges for vehicle parking.
If we enter into a contract by parking a vehicle on that land, we are liable for all and any agreed charges.
That being the case, invoices (not fines) and admin charges raised for unpaid parking periods are enforceable.
Surely, any legally qualified bod cant argue that point?
They can and do pursue, as would anyone with regard to an unpaid invoice.
I find your advice to simply ignore demands for payment if the vehicle owner thinks they are unfair questionable, particularly from a legal person.
"Fair" has nothing to do with it.
A contract is a contract.

This isn't about gaining Kudos or scoring points, it's about information rather than misinformation and wishful thinking, both of which can prove costly.

 

[nodge]

Im sorry, The original point you made that I disputed was that parking operators are using the courts and generally getting successful outcomes. This is incorrect.

You can now dress it up differently if you like, but that is the only point i disputed.

If you want to argue that point, I suggest you make a freedom of information request to the ministry of justice and get the figures for yourself.

 

[johnp10]

Im sorry, The original point you made that I disputed was that parking operators are using the courts and generally getting successful outcomes. This is incorrect.

You can now dress it up differently if you like, but that is the only point i disputed.

If you want to argue that point, I suggest you make a freedom of information request to the ministry of justice and get the figures for yourself.

I haven't changed my stance, nor dressed anything differently as you put it.
My stance was and is:
A contract exists.
As such it is enforceable.
I still question your advice to ignore as unenforceable charge notices which, being related to valid contracts, must have legal standing, particularly as your advice is coming from a legally qualified base.

I have no wish to argue any point, nor fart about with a freedom of information request to find out what I already know in practice.

This will now only go in circles, time to end it before it gets boring.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[nodge]

I have no wish to argue any point, nor fart about with a freedom of information request to find out what I already know in practice.

This will now only go in circles, time to end it before it gets boring.

Or until we get some facts.

some basic web research has revealed the following.

As part of the due diligence before the law was passed, an Impact Assessment was carried out, in particular on the burden on the county court system in trying cases where keepers and drivers were pursued for private parking charges they had not paid.

The figures submitted by the BPA were that between 2% and 5% of tickets issued resulted in court action. This equates to between 36,000 and 90,000 of the 1,800,000 tickets issued.

But a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice shows that, in fact, members of the BPA registered only 845 small claims court actions, of which only 49 cases actually went to a contested hearing in the small claims court.

This does seem to differ from "what you already know" but no doubt you'll gloss over that.

 

[johnp10]

[HI][/HI]

Or until we get some facts.

some basic web research has revealed the following.

As part of the due diligence before the law was passed, an Impact Assessment was carried out, in particular on the burden on the county court system in trying cases where keepers and drivers were pursued for private parking charges they had not paid.

The figures submitted by the BPA were that between 2% and 5% of tickets issued resulted in court action. [HI]This equates to between 36,000 and 90,000 of the 1,800,000 tickets issued.[/HI]
But a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice shows that, in fact, members of the BPA registered only 845 small claims court actions, of which only 49 cases actually went to a contested hearing in the small claims court.

This does seem to differ from "what you already know" but no doubt you'll gloss over that.

Nodge,
I wont gloss over anything.
[HI]
That's still a lot of tickets.
[/HI]Does not the fact that ANY of these claims went to SCC indicate that they are pursuable?
of those that went, only a few were contested.
That assumes the rest were settled, rather than ignored?
I've known lots of SCC claims get settled rather than gain credit complications.
In or out of court, most get settled, which is my experience in the industry.

The fact that they CAN be pursued should make one think twice about assuming they wont be?

Anyway, we have a pop on here, but we don't do confrontation as such.
Time to leave it be.
Just warn folks they CAN be pursued, eh?

I see you have "gone blue"....Welcome to Fun.

 

[nodge]

Had to go blue, or I wouldn't be able to get the subscriber benefits. Thanks for the welcome, been around a while but new to this forum.

Happy to let it be, I feel thoroughly beaten up.

Now, what shall we all talk about?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[johnp10]

How about where we CAN park?

 

[nodge]

How about where we CAN park?

You're driveway.

 

[GJH]

How about where we CAN park?

Already answered in Broken Link Removed, keep up at the back there please

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Mags52]

I started this thread last year because I thought it was good news. There's one can of worms I wish I'd not opened. oh:oh:

 

[Stephen & Jeannie]

I think this is a classic case of a thread being hi-jacked !!

By the way.......I saw the original thread and have parked up at numerous sites where the infamous yellow signs were !!:Cool::Cool::Cool:

 

[keith]

I started this thread last year because I thought it was good news. There's one can of worms I wish I'd not opened. oh:oh:

Don't worry Margaret we don't blame you for all that transpired from your original post.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[motorhomelover]

The 'illegal' signs were erected to prevent lay-bys being used by 'travelers', caravans and motorhomes as camping grounds, thereby depriving others .. now it's been highlighted and brought to the attention of the authorities, how long before they apply for TRO's. ?
Andy's action may be laudable but sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs lie..

Having a nap is one thing, but camping in a lay-by ? Why not book into a site. Not only a much safer place to spend the night but also help support the local economy.

Just to clarify, I'm not against legal wild camping in a proper setting.. but lay-by camping isn't wild camping, it's parking. Many a time I've stopped for a break in one and been disgusted at the mess and human filth left on the roadside, why anyone would want to sleep in one is beyond me.

I agree with most you say Jim but I must take issue on the one point of using sites
Some of us got our motorhomes to allow us the freedom of the road. Why should we be forced in to over priced sites.
It's sad but the few make it harder for the many

I am a blue badge holder and need to stop when I need to stop.
It's crazy they now charge blue badge to park I many towns and car parks it's a get rich quick for the authorities. It's all about making money